From repenno@cisco.com Mon Feb 4 22:50:52 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A5121F895B for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 22:50:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jZQN4DNU16Y0 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 22:50:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E42921F863C for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 22:50:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=555; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1360047051; x=1361256651; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=K6JzyG/juKDwLmZ1Vw40YxcYyZQeBPj9xAnHKli9+go=; b=YQva51PDdw0j4MtX8+yDTkf7XEKzqrlm57r5Z2BBNfllKzxV5pNXmkz2 IJ9+WhNdykae4g9oEXSydX+OibGI6OIckaE2UnQpIjQLHuX5bOvxluNWg c8kDM09eFcVyZszUWnJIfTcmaA7nEqzo0luxjzVXn5NHHfQT4Zcu2x+Pm Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjoFAOipEFGtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABFhgG5WxZzgiEBBB0dNB0BKhRCJwQbAYgIDJpskRWQFI0Sg2dhA5c+jzSCfIFvNQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,602,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="173369660" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Feb 2013 06:50:51 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r156ooir028361 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 06:50:50 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.79]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 00:50:50 -0600 From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" To: "pcp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG Call for Adoption: draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01 Thread-Index: AQHOA20ib4eBKHN0gkSbSYLIpJNFxA== Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 06:50:50 +0000 Message-ID: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F060408FF7A5D@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805 x-originating-ip: [10.21.83.95] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <95682E138146624DAEC5A978866E2C23@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01 X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 06:50:52 -0000 Hello, This email starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting Title : PCP Description Option Author(s) : M. Boucadair et al Filename : draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01.txt URL :=20 http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01.txt Please read the current revision and state you opinion either for or against adoption (and with reasoning why) in the mailing list. The call for adoption ends 18th January 2013. Thanks, From christian.jacquenet@orange.com Tue Feb 5 00:50:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E73E921F8923 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 00:50:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.948 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ivyrhcyyMMPu for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 00:50:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E53621F8962 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 00:50:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by omfedm09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id C536D2DC3D4; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:50:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.30]) by omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 9821327C064; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:50:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCB1C.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.9]) by PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.30]) with mapi; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:50:34 +0100 From: To: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" , "pcp@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:50:32 +0100 Thread-Topic: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01 Thread-Index: AQHOA20ib4eBKHN0gkSbSYLIpJNFxJhq9Lqg Message-ID: <3247_1360054234_5110C7DA_3247_3237_2_983A1D8DA0DA5F4EB747BF34CBEE5CD15A6C6E1EE9@PUEXCB1C.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F060408FF7A5D@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F060408FF7A5D@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Accept-Language: fr-FR Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2013.2.5.75414 Subject: Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01 X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 08:50:47 -0000 Hello WG, I support the adoption of draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01 as a pc= p WG document. Cheers, Christian. -----Message d'origine----- De : pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Reina= ldo Penno (repenno) Envoy=E9 : mardi 5 f=E9vrier 2013 07:51 =C0 : pcp@ietf.org Objet : [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-= 01 Hello, This email starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting Title : PCP Description Option Author(s) : M. Boucadair et al Filename : draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01.txt URL :=20 http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01.txt Please read the current revision and state you opinion either for or agains= t adoption (and with reasoning why) in the mailing list. The call for adoption ends 18th January 2013. Thanks, _______________________________________________ pcp mailing list pcp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete al= tere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for message= s that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. From simon.perreault@viagenie.ca Tue Feb 5 01:41:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 752A121F8759 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 01:41:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.557 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZUK9zBcggSyh for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 01:41:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1777B21F873D for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 01:41:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:660:3001:4012:245a:a34b:600:fe8b]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 421904040E for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 04:41:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5110D403.4020807@viagenie.ca> Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:42:27 +0100 From: Simon Perreault User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pcp@ietf.org References: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F060408FF7A5D@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F060408FF7A5D@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01 X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 09:41:38 -0000 Le 2013-02-05 07:50, Reinaldo Penno (repenno) a écrit : > Please read the current revision and state you opinion either for or > against adoption (and with reasoning why) in the mailing list. For. It is a nice convenience when end-users directly manipulate PCP mappings (as opposed to mappings created automatically by applications). We implemented this draft. It was straightforward. No surprises. Simon From wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Feb 5 01:53:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D756F21F86EA for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 01:53:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F6+m8pCo0wDP for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 01:53:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7F0A21F86E6 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 01:53:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id r159qjgf017508 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:53:00 +0100 Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.74) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (135.120.45.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:52:46 +0100 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.76]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:52:45 +0100 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: "christian.jacquenet@orange.com" , "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" , "pcp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01 Thread-Index: AQHOA4aME7r9wChbm020cDORWTltkw== Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:52:44 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3247_1360054234_5110C7DA_3247_3237_2_983A1D8DA0DA5F4EB747BF34CBEE5CD15A6C6E1EE9@PUEXCB1C.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.0.121105 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.11] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.84 Subject: Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01 X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 09:53:05 -0000 +1 On 05/02/13 09:50, "christian.jacquenet@orange.com" wrote: >Hello WG, > >I support the adoption of draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01 as a >pcp WG document. > >Cheers, > >Christian. > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de >Reinaldo Penno (repenno) >Envoy=E9 : mardi 5 f=E9vrier 2013 07:51 >=C0 : pcp@ietf.org >Objet : [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: >draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01 > >Hello, > >This email starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting > > Title : PCP Description Option > Author(s) : M. Boucadair et al > Filename : draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01.txt > URL :=20 >http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01.txt > > >Please read the current revision and state you opinion either for or >against adoption (and with reasoning why) in the mailing list. > >The call for adoption ends 18th January 2013. > >Thanks, > >_______________________________________________ >pcp mailing list >pcp@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp > >__________________________________________________________________________ >_______________________________________________ > >Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez >recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages >electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete >altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > >This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >information that may be protected by law; >they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >delete this message and its attachments. >As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for >messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. >Thank you. > >_______________________________________________ >pcp mailing list >pcp@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp From repenno@cisco.com Thu Feb 7 15:45:33 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 935EB21F89B2 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:45:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xThbVnFPQ88Q for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:45:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21FA921F89AE for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:45:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=191; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1360280733; x=1361490333; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=dNTug6csm1RNdfAU+UFKhhqq8+s8cxg+fLNRoMeUr2k=; b=lgfHslodaARWgmpOmqlIKsyTVF3gCBFq1qCJ8ssSedJPnvcmeiZIk1aw zZk7wRSITHvUkFu2nomN5fNoDdh+9FReuP3aDov8Kz/st2uTCEl48FOez CbbbZP47RXHxneEEvZHe0e0/makMsnVMqHrm1exK/dXCop4fnamGzpF6e I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAEs7FFGtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABFwHoWc4IhAQQdHVEBKhRCJwQbiAmfFKEljRSDZ2EDpnODAIFvNQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,625,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="174689883" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2013 23:45:29 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r17NjSHm015062 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 23:45:29 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.79]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:45:28 -0600 From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" To: "pcp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: PCP Call for Agenda Items at IETF 86 Orlando Thread-Index: AQHOBY01AaBwOovgbEut2XYoaA9ivA== Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 23:45:28 +0000 Message-ID: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F060408FFA42D@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805 x-originating-ip: [10.21.119.178] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <239E0A8D6A60AB47BF1A98ACB8CED6F7@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [pcp] PCP Call for Agenda Items at IETF 86 Orlando X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 23:45:33 -0000 Hello, Please send slot requests to the chairs or reply to this email. In your request include presentation title, URL pointer to draft (if any), presenter and time needed. Thanks, From cheshire@apple.com Sat Feb 9 18:44:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A7021F8546 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 18:44:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.929, BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ELihR7II6L5q for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 18:44:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-out.apple.com (bramley.apple.com [17.151.62.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B55121F8558 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 18:44:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from relay14.apple.com ([17.128.113.52]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTPS id <0MHZ00AJPGX800G1@mail-out.apple.com> for pcp@ietf.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 18:44:17 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 11807134-b7f546d000005e2f-4e-511709810bba Received: from kencur (kencur.apple.com [17.151.62.38]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (RC4-MD5/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay14.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 80.84.24111.18907115; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 18:44:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.15] (173-164-252-149-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.164.252.149]) by kencur.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01(7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTPSA id <0MHZ00CXXGXS5B50@kencur.apple.com> for pcp@ietf.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 18:44:16 -0800 (PST) From: Stuart Cheshire Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 18:44:16 -0800 To: PCP Message-id: <8CF7CBFA-0C33-49D3-94F6-8E186F79095C@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpkluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IRnG6nptvIKR5osLiR02Lysd+sDoweS5b8 ZApgjOKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DK+Hr5EXPBFfaKKw89GxgXsHUxcnJICJhItCxrYIawxSQu3FsP FhcSaGeSWNsb0MXIBWTvY5J43/ucCSTBJqAl8eLzFbAiZiB7/c7jTBC2tsSTdxdYQWwWAVWJ rfs2gA0VFpCT+LzuIVhcBGjB6scPwep5BWwkujpWsEDYhhJLrm9hhzhCVmLnndMsExh5ZyFZ MQvJillIWhYwMq9iFCxKzUmsNDTRSywoyEnVS87P3cQICpiGQpMdjAd/8h9iFOBgVOLhZXws FijEmlhWXJl7iFGCg1lJhHdvFlCINyWxsiq1KD++qDQntfgQozQHi5I475p44UAhgfTEktTs 1NSC1CKYLBMHp1QDo8he40lXCtt/lnzs+pO96taVl+9MWB5kGFixy7zd8NLNosFtnqf4jO9f etd6bbN+HznRNpBZLOSr6ObrZ7jrbxvvS2GtE5TZkubdW886KfHZ5V4x6YN7NRuVOKTuV3tF r/pzau67BTrZPIb1rbtrdPxWm2TVSEow+l9tnZvmK/muMvBvwXVhJZbijERDLeai4kQAFuLi pxQCAAA= Subject: [pcp] PCP for mobile phones X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 02:44:35 -0000 I have submitted two Internet Drafts which propose the mechanisms necessary for Personal Hotspot software on a mobile telephone to use PCP. PCP Anycast proposes how a mobile telephone can communicate with the upstream NAT gateway over 3GPP: Of course some way of using PCP over 3GPP is necessary even in the simple case of a PCP client on the mobile telephone wanting to make basic PCP requests of its own. If the mobile telephone also runs Personal Hotspot software making Wi-Fi Internet Access available to other local clients, then there will be typically two NATs involved: the Personal Hotspot NAT, and the mobile telephone carrier's NAT. In this case we need a way for the two NATs to cooperate to provide connectivity to the client devices. Recursive PCP proposes how this can be done: Stuart Cheshire From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Feb 12 07:27:48 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC6121F8B3B; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:27:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hjP53+rkg+xr; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:27:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1215B21F8C31; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:27:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.37 Message-ID: <20130212152748.24399.75819.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:27:48 -0800 Cc: pcp@ietf.org Subject: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64-00.txt X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:27:48 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Port Control Protocol Working Group of th= e IETF. Title : Learn NAT64 PREFIX64s using PCP Author(s) : Mohamed Boucadair Filename : draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64-00.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2013-02-12 Abstract: This document defines a new PCP extension to learn the IPv6 prefix(es) used by a PCP-controlled NAT64 device to build IPv4- embedded IPv6 addresses. This extension is needed for successful communications when IPv4 addresses are used in referrals. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64 There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Tue Feb 12 08:19:58 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FF021F8F76 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:19:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.087 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.161, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NkIk4ysjJuZI for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:19:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F3E21F8F6C for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:19:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm10.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id B0FC6264148; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:19:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCH51.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.31]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 917D7238062; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:19:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by PUEXCH51.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.31]) with mapi; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:19:52 +0100 From: To: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" , "pcp@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:19:51 +0100 Thread-Topic: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 Thread-Index: AQHN3uybfXVjAbB6bU6t4S6LHaLs+ZgizVgwgClNTICAAAN+wIAqmosg Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EAEE11EF5@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A148C07A6@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EA601E417@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A148E56D5@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A148E56D5@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> Accept-Language: fr-FR Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2013.2.12.154518 Subject: Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:19:58 -0000 Hi Tiru, Please see inline. Cheers, Med=20 >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) [mailto:tireddy@cisco.com]=20 >Envoy=E9 : jeudi 17 janvier 2013 13:27 >=C0 : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; pcp@ietf.org >Objet : RE: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 > >Hi Med, > >Please see inline [Tiru] > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com=20 >[mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:00 PM >> To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy); pcp@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 >>=20 >> Hi Tiru, >>=20 >> Many thanks for the comments. >>=20 >> Please see inline. >>=20 >> Cheers, >> Med >>=20 >> >-----Message d'origine----- >> >De : Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) [mailto:tireddy@cisco.com] >> >Envoy=E9 : vendredi 21 d=E9cembre 2012 07:43 >> >=C0 : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; pcp@ietf.org >> >Objet : Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 >> > >> >Hi Med, >> > >> >Comments >> > >> >[1] Section 3 PCP Server Discovery and Provisioning : >> >You may also want to add details that PCP Proxy would use >> >similar mechanism just like PCP client to discover the PCP server. >>=20 >> Med: I updated the text with an explicit ref to Section 8.1=20 >of draft-ietf-pcp- >> base. >>=20 >> > >> >[2] Section 5 Control of the Firewall : >> >Firewall rules would be typically to block any unsolicited >> >traffic from outside to inside. For PCP request/response this >> >will not be a problem, but would have issues with unsolicited >> >ANNOUNCE. In this case PCP Authentication looks mandatory to >> >handle man-in-middle attacks trying to act as PCP Server. >>=20 >> Med: is that a problem even if the pcp server is known to=20 >the pcp proxy ? > >The PCP server could be in a different administrative domain=20 >that may or may have IP source guard; attacker can spoof the=20 >well-known IP address of the PCP server and send ANNOUNCE. PCP=20 >authentication looks mandatory. Med: Why is this specific to PCP Proxy case? In this leg, the PCP Proxy is = acting as a PCP Client. Security considerations discussed in the base spec = apply here. > >>=20 >> > >> >[3] Section 5 : Replace REMOTE_PEER_FILTER with FILTER option >>=20 >> Med: Fixed. Thanks. >>=20 >> > >> >[4] Section 8 MAP/PEER handling : you may also want to clarify >> >PCP proxy behavior when PCP client uses THIRD_PARTY option. >>=20 >> Med: I updated the text to explicitly require the PCP server=20 >follows the pcp >> server recommendations detailed in section 13.1 of=20 >draft-ietf-pcp-base. >>=20 >> > >> >[5] Section 10.1 Multiple PCP servers : There could be another >> >scenarios that PCP proxy would forward the PCP request to one >> >of the PCP servers depending on the fields set in PCP request >> >(for specific use cases please refer to >> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery >> >-00 , >> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-pcp-mobile-deployment-02# >> >section-8)] >> > >>=20 >> Med: what change you want to see in that section? Thanks. > >The PCP proxy based on various fields set in the PCP request,=20 >client identity will forward the PCP request to different PCP=20 >servers. For example in the case of PMIPv6 based on the UE=20 >subscription traffic offload rules will be installed on the=20 >MAG. MAG acting as PCP proxy can either handle the PCP request=20 >in the local access network itself or relay the PCP request to=20 >the PCP server in the home network. I guess similar mechanism=20 >would be needed in 3GPP network with SIPTO. Med: I added this sentence:=20 "The PCP Proxy MAY rely on some fields (e.g., Zone ID [I-D.penno-pcp-zones]= in the PCP request to redirect the request to a given PCP Server." > >>=20 >> >[6] How is it ensured that only the PCP proxy can communicate >> >with the PCP server and not any other PCP client ? >>=20 >> Med: Should this be part of the PCP Proxy spec ? > >This can be solved by simple techniques like ACL to block PCP=20 >client from communicating directly with the PCP server. You=20 >can mention it in security considerations. Med: I added this sentence to the security section:=20 "The device embedding the PCP Proxy MAY block PCP requests directly sent to= the PCP Server. This control can be enforced using access control list." > >--Tiru. > >>=20 >> > >> >--Tiru. >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org]=20 >On Behalf Of >> >> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com >> >> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 5:33 PM >> >> To: pcp@ietf.org >> >> Subject: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> A new version is now available online: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 >> >> >> >> The main changes in -01 are as follows: >> >> >> >> * The reference architecture is updated: the PCP proxy is >> >not restricted to >> >> the CP router deployment case. >> >> * Add a new section to specify the behaviour when the PCP >> >Proxy is not >> >> co-located with a NAT function >> >> * Add a new section for mappings repair >> >> * More discussion for the multiple PCP Servers scenario >> >> * Text is cleanup >> >> >> >> A detailed diff is available here: >> >> >> >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 >> >> >> >> Please review this new version and provide input. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Med >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> pcp mailing list >> >> pcp@ietf.org >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp >> > >> > >= From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Feb 12 08:29:00 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B028A21F8F27; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:29:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.587 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PXcQ4ThMX+9Z; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:29:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDE421F8F40; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:29:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.37 Message-ID: <20130212162900.15656.13086.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:29:00 -0800 Cc: pcp@ietf.org Subject: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-02.txt X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:29:00 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Port Control Protocol Working Group of th= e IETF. Title : Port Control Protocol (PCP) Proxy Function Author(s) : Mohamed Boucadair Reinaldo Penno Dan Wing Filename : draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-02.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2013-02-12 Abstract: This document specifies a new PCP functional element denoted as PCP Proxy. The PCP Proxy relays PCP requests received from PCP Clients to upstream PCP Server(s). This function is mandatory when PCP Clients can not be configured with the address of the PCP Server located more than one hop. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-proxy There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pcp-proxy-02 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Tue Feb 12 08:34:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF2C121F8F99 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:34:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.103 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M3HsBUwuUINi for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:34:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B585221F8F96 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:34:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id A177322CA23 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:34:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from puexch91.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.48]) by omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 8C42D27C053 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:34:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by puexch91.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.48]) with mapi; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:34:49 +0100 From: To: "pcp@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:34:47 +0100 Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-02.txt Thread-Index: Ac4JPhrRo7ZHSEy7R22l+Vm7D0mTXQAAFRIw Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EAEE11F08@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <20130212162900.15656.13086.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20130212162900.15656.13086.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: fr-FR Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2013.2.12.154518 Subject: Re: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-02.txt X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:34:51 -0000 Dear all, This new revision of the draft includes the following changes (mainly to in= tegrate the comments from Tiru): * Align some terms with the base specification * Add an explicit sentence about THIRD_PARTY option behaviour * Add a sentence in the security section to suggest the device embedding th= e PCP Proxy may block requests directly sent to the PCP server This document still need more reviews.=20 Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org=20 >[mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de=20 >internet-drafts@ietf.org >Envoy=E9 : mardi 12 f=E9vrier 2013 17:29 >=C0 : i-d-announce@ietf.org >Cc : pcp@ietf.org >Objet : I-D Action: draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-02.txt > > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line=20 >Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Port Control Protocol=20 >Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Port Control Protocol (PCP) Proxy Function > Author(s) : Mohamed Boucadair > Reinaldo Penno > Dan Wing > Filename : draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-02.txt > Pages : 11 > Date : 2013-02-12 > >Abstract: > This document specifies a new PCP functional element denoted as PCP > Proxy. The PCP Proxy relays PCP requests received from PCP Clients > to upstream PCP Server(s). This function is mandatory when PCP > Clients can not be configured with the address of the PCP Server > located more than one hop. > > >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-proxy > >There's also a htmlized version available at: >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-02 > >A diff from the previous version is available at: >http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pcp-proxy-02 > > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >_______________________________________________ >I-D-Announce mailing list >I-D-Announce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >= From sravikum@cisco.com Tue Feb 12 15:37:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DD2E21F8994; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:37:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OzX2IuUC8Bll; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:37:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDDA421F898A; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:37:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1481; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1360712226; x=1361921826; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=wEkT0wKsTkr9sWsdIDmEeIeoaIB5fA9VwEw2kHvKWtI=; b=kP7VJCxxCv9cTQH60nikBA8FgHNZghuXAwbexycRsEb/aSa00qEHdwtK sLp6lYAfbiP3jXPjZ0HtoChT1uv49FIqYmMg3xROqC272yCngvFDmMRWJ 9M86sYma2Ar/Sjj3SQIfC8/JgfIiJ8ftOtn3TTG0Xkjyj+VTsXJKnTSx6 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgoFABXRGlGtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABEgmyBDbxyFnOCHwEBAQQ6PRQBCCIUQhsBBgMCBAEaARKHdwEGBa9hkAORJGEDl0GPNoMGgic X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,652,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="176393995" Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2013 23:37:06 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1CNb6Gn002618 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:37:06 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:37:05 -0600 From: "Ravikumar Chandrasekaran (sravikum)" To: "netext@ietf.org" , "pcp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHOCXncpwwka3rr0EiPH8wZ4KtDgA== Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:37:04 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20130211162000.17677.55270.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 x-originating-ip: [10.65.66.93] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7F4FE1495142754FA38C4A0692CA8973@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [pcp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-02.txt X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:37:07 -0000 This updated revision of our draft addresses comments from Gang Chen. Thanks, Ravikumar > >A new version of I-D, draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-02.txt >has been successfully submitted by Ravikumar Chandrasekaran and posted to >the >IETF repository. > >Filename: draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery >Revision: 02 >Title: PCP Server Discovery with IPv4 traffic offload for Proxy Mobile >IPv6 >Creation date: 2013-02-11 >WG ID: Individual Submission >Number of pages: 13 >URL: =20 >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-0 >2.txt >Status: =20 >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery >Htmlized: =20 >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-02 >Diff: =20 >http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery-02 > >Abstract: > This document proposes a solution to PCP Server Discovery problems in > Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) networks when both home network traffic > and traffic off-loaded to local access network require traversing a > gateway implementing NAT and/or Firewall. This draft proposes > enhancements to DHCPv4 Relay Agent by introducing a new sub-option > under DHCPv4 Relay Option and to PMIPv6 signaling through additional > options to Proxy Binding Update/Acknowledgement messages. > > =20 > =20 > > >The IETF Secretariat > From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Wed Feb 13 05:19:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D5E21F8856 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:19:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.127 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aiaos6E7KdCW for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:19:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65BC421F87D2 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:19:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 8126922CE20 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:19:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCH61.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.32]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 68D5D35C055 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:19:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by PUEXCH61.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.32]) with mapi; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:19:10 +0100 From: To: "pcp@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:19:09 +0100 Thread-Topic: draft-boucadair-pcp-flow-examples-00 Thread-Index: Ac4J6FB4Ekx+IiPDTzCbmxpYjzwynAAAaJBw Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EAFB5627A@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> Accept-Language: fr-FR Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.12.31.121227 Subject: [pcp] draft-boucadair-pcp-flow-examples-00 X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:19:22 -0000 Dear all, I submitted this new I-D which includes PCP flow examples.=20 Comments and suggestion are welcome. Cheers, Med =20 -----Message d'origine----- De : i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] D= e la part de internet-drafts@ietf.org Envoy=E9 : mercredi 13 f=E9vrier 2013 13:47 =C0 : i-d-announce@ietf.org Objet : I-D Action: draft-boucadair-pcp-flow-examples-00.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. Title : PCP Flow Examples Author(s) : Mohamed Boucadair Filename : draft-boucadair-pcp-flow-examples-00.txt Pages : 34 Date : 2013-02-13 Abstract: This document provides a set of examples to illustrate PCP operations. It is a companion document to the base PCP specification. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-pcp-flow-examples There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-flow-examples-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt From repenno@cisco.com Wed Feb 13 12:25:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9331D21F870C for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:25:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VPOEr2XV5Ph3 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:25:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E488421F870A for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:25:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=996; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1360787151; x=1361996751; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=OxdMOqeMS5TxEpzjz5MJx9eoNr2UIoU9+JkGAEuzMio=; b=exgxx9fMKeBXibDeztTR6y3aOf+SpfzqbZQQuFrmlJaxZHnOdBguJCqd zfh1DyZQjqAdeNwOKlSKGWwPrOT3byVwsLDj7Frt9S7YIX38TGpiC6a80 rw1mQUAA2Mlib+JvDJlBqkclojC/dUDliR+fwGPcY6zDJE62dr6NBbkpj g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkQFAEb2G1GtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABFhgi6ZhZzgiEBBDpRASoUQiUCBBMIAYgJDJ5QoQCRI2EDl0GPNoMGgic X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,658,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="176786036" Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2013 20:25:50 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1DKPo8C003885 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 20:25:50 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.112]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:25:50 -0600 From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" To: "pcp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: PCP Authentication Requirements (draft-reddy-pcp-auth-req-00.txt) Thread-Index: AQHOCihPX68GtxyJuUuF0Qku86DjYw== Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 20:25:49 +0000 Message-ID: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040900B1FD@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <20130213172914.20863.92290.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805 x-originating-ip: [10.21.112.239] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [pcp] PCP Authentication Requirements (draft-reddy-pcp-auth-req-00.txt) X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 20:25:51 -0000 On 2/13/13 3:29 PM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" wrote: > >A new version of I-D, draft-reddy-pcp-auth-req-00.txt >has been successfully submitted by Tirumaleswar Reddy and posted to the >IETF repository. > >Filename: draft-reddy-pcp-auth-req >Revision: 00 >Title: PCP Authentication Requirements >Creation date: 2013-02-13 >Group: Individual Submission >Number of pages: 7 >URL: =20 >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-reddy-pcp-auth-req-00.txt >Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reddy-pcp-auth-req >Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reddy-pcp-auth-req-00 > > >Abstract: > In an attempt to reach consensus on a PCP authentication mechanism, > this document describes requirements for PCP authentication. It is > hoped this can serve as the basis for a comparison of PCP > authentication mechanisms. > > =20 > =20 > > >The IETF Secretariat > From dthaler@microsoft.com Thu Feb 14 11:36:11 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C02B421F85D2 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:36:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44v4byHy07D3 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:36:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (na01-by2-obe.ptr.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B643021F85CE for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:36:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from BY2FFO11FD006.protection.gbl (10.1.15.200) by BY2FFO11HUB026.protection.gbl (10.1.14.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.620.12; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:36:09 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BY2FFO11FD006.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.1.14.127) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.620.12 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:36:08 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14MLTW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.24.14) by TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.7.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.3; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:35:45 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.39) by TK5EX14MLTW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.24.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.328.11; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:35:45 -0800 Received: from TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.12]) by TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.39]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.011; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:35:45 -0800 From: Dave Thaler To: Ted Lemon , "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp Thread-Index: Ac3/svMhIiSqbDmMSHGU8XxAMPj6cQASMtEAABCLoND//45SgP/qQqvw Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:35:44 +0000 Message-ID: <341064315C6D0D498193B256F238CF973CBE53@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EA9C83E5A@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630747476816@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EA9C83EFB@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630747476A86@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630747476A86@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.43] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(377454001)(11905935001)(51704002)(24454001)(13464002)(189002)(199002)(44976002)(74662001)(23726001)(47446002)(15202345001)(33656001)(76482001)(74502001)(50466001)(4396001)(49866001)(51856001)(47976001)(77982001)(59766001)(50986001)(55846006)(66066001)(46406002)(16406001)(16796002)(80022001)(65816001)(53806001)(47776003)(56816002)(54356001)(20776003)(47736001)(5343655001)(56776001)(5343635001)(54316002)(31966008)(63696002)(79102001)(46102001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2FFO11HUB026; H:TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com X-Forefront-PRVS: 0757EEBDCA Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:36:11 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Ted Lemon > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:49 AM > To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > Cc: pcp@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp >=20 > On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:04 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: > > Mandating the server to resolve the name and return an IP-Address is a > deployment option but this is not a valid option for some providers. I al= ready > discussed this inhttp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-dhc-address- > name-encoding-03. We had a long discussion in dhc mailing list, no need t= o > replay that discussion here. >=20 > You discuss this, but nobody has yet presented a valid use case. No val= id use > case is presented in your document, unless you agree that the use case is= the > split DNS use case. In the discussion you cite, no motivating use case = is > given-it's just taken as read that this is going to be represented as a s= tring. Above I believe you're referring to draft-boucadair-dhc-address-name-encodi= ng-03. A use case is presented in draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-05 Appendix A. Within the WG, we do care about what draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp ought to do, think we're blocked any more general consensus regarding draft-boucadair-dhc-address-name-encoding. > My motivation here is to try to help you to get the document into a state > where it will pass muster in the DHC working group. At the moment, it w= ill > not pass muster. So despite the discussion that you cite, I think we re= ally > need to reopen the issue of what the motivating use case is for this > divergence from standard practice. >=20 > If there is a motivating use case, that's great-let's figure out how to a= ddress > it. But until such a use case has been explicitly stated (maybe it was = stated in > some discussion that you summarized, but left out of the summary?) I thin= k Noted above, in Appendix A in draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp. > the default should be to just use an IP address, and let the DHCP server = do > the name resolution. That's fully supported in the current draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp mechanism (the IP address gets encoded as a string literal). But regardless of the = encoding Mechanism, I do agree that it would be good to saying that the *default* sh= ould be to use an IP address. > I will point out that in the discussion you summarized, one motivation fo= r not > saying "FQDN" is that different name service infrastructures might be use= d. > If that is indeed a motivating use case, this argues _strongly_ for sendi= ng an > IP address, and letting the DHCP server do the name service lookup. > Otherwise you are depending on all the nodes on your network to be able t= o > support whatever name service infrastructure you intend to use; I don't > think this is realistic. There is no such dependency. That's what the DHCP Class Id option (60) is used for in general (i.e. to provide different answers to different clas= ses of client) and could be similarly used for this option in heterogeneous=20 environments. =20 http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/dhcp2/dhcp-user-class-and-vendor-class-= options-7983 is an example of an article talking about this over 12 years ago. I would agree though that the draft contains no such discussion and it ough= t to. -Dave From sardella@comcast.net Thu Feb 14 11:53:33 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDA7421F89EF for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:53:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.437 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rpW-xukBsfaq for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:53:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:212]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E851921F84E6 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:53:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from omta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.36]) by qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 0JQl1l0030mv7h05EKtTuC; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:53:27 +0000 Received: from sardella.org ([66.31.217.2]) by omta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 0KtS1l00703hDFm3XKtTAH; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:53:27 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sardella.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id r1EJqmxB026261 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:52:49 -0500 Message-ID: <511D40B5.70104@comcast.net> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:53:25 -0500 From: Norman Sardella User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pcp@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1360871607; bh=NNndAGXozbS4BaEEMMXL0OIrd9w4EFEbUsGlK3IDuuQ=; h=Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To: Subject:Content-Type; b=glJnBapIH3gnU+AknmHJzafJ0IMb7oKwCs6YBVcL0bGgPruebif9fBlfSxFytIqS+ 1isArHu7IIU1SlI/DkyaJznJ1jqrLn47fYvt8xnx5NY1y1xh3NRTykS8d4AoaTiTWR GuhcZYUr0u4onPc56KQVhrpJItUqMabyhk5KUoENXJi0PnWnOfovT5QC2qKPvdwQa4 CCPqotqSh0bA8QmapK3iNpzELwjKj1PRda+ECfOzrMBEg/rTeRR8wK2GnyMNK8katB toJRw/pHtqLEt1yf6Mb26V6esI9Iy1u/zRNE26qG35UzzKpasQ2R55NYKUa7ykSa7R NHfb6GV1rBZLQ== Subject: [pcp] PCP Draft 29 question about PREFER_FAILURE and Suggested External Address field of all zeroes X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:53:33 -0000 In draft-ietf-pcp-base-29, "Section 13.2. PREFER_FAILURE Option for MAP Opcode", The draft mentions that when PREFER_FAILURE is set, "all-zeros IPv4 or all-zeros IPv6 address in the Suggested External Address field, it is invalid." Is this a valid case? Its unclear in a CGNAT/DS-LITE environment where the CPE would be running a UPnP to PCP gateway and the CGNAT equipment provides an External Address, how the CPE could provide an initial PCP MAP request with an External IP Address when the CGNAT device maintains them. On a MAPPING update, I could see providing an Suggested External Address I understand that UPnP IGDv1 client allows to dictate mapping a specific port, but its unclear in a CGNAT/DS-LITE environment how to specify an Suggested External IP address. On a MAPPING update, I could see providing an Suggested External Address, but don't understand how a CPE provide the Suggested External Address on an initial MAP request. > 13.2. PREFER_FAILURE Option for MAP Opcode ... > > If a PCP request contains the PREFER_FAILURE option and has zero in > the Suggested External Port field, or has the all-zeros IPv4 or all- > zeros IPv6 address in the Suggested External Address field, it is > invalid. The PCP server MUST reject such a message with the > MALFORMED_OPTION error code. From dwing@cisco.com Thu Feb 14 14:21:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E91521F86D4 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:21:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.162 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.162 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.437, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y6ZbQK0A01J0 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:21:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF6E21F86C4 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:21:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2679; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1360880479; x=1362090079; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0mODtjI1N2+aZUmTPfSNKMfGFxBZKDAvPmN8dHatMfc=; b=Ny/OuEKwAueOaoqNMNNy/FTcxK0AqurejoIGyslizA10SY098BXlJvPu jz+Ijz4IL84MmAHfflpt2zQ8rWYNJovkhT9wG2STmjln/2XGM+4xaFwoh dqYRRab7B979hJgLXGTif7jXqMtCMurcfq0PWe2AdwpzYQENIxA+Bt55k g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlQJAONiHVGrRDoI/2dsb2JhbABEv2YEBH0Wc4IfAQEBAwEBAQEFAjA0EAcBAwIJEQQBASQEBxkOHwkIAgQBEgsFh3wFDb0bkgQDiGaFIYgdgR2IOYZ9gVKBVg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,666,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="69690281" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2013 22:21:19 +0000 Received: from DWINGWS01 ([10.154.36.85]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1EMLIvs000992; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:21:18 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Norman Sardella'" , References: <511D40B5.70104@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <511D40B5.70104@comcast.net> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:21:18 -0800 Message-ID: <081201ce0b01$9c7f14d0$d57d3e70$@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGzc5GxRsZnrA3bR64nhe53A5cQrZivGtzA Content-Language: en-us Subject: Re: [pcp] PCP Draft 29 question about PREFER_FAILURE and Suggested External Address field of all zeroes X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:21:21 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Norman Sardella > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:53 AM > To: pcp@ietf.org > Subject: [pcp] PCP Draft 29 question about PREFER_FAILURE and Suggested > External Address field of all zeroes > > In draft-ietf-pcp-base-29, > "Section 13.2. PREFER_FAILURE Option for MAP Opcode", The draft > mentions that when PREFER_FAILURE is set, > "all-zeros IPv4 or all-zeros IPv6 address in the Suggested External > Address field, it is invalid." > > Is this a valid case? Its unclear in a CGNAT/DS-LITE environment where > the CPE would be running a UPnP to PCP gateway and the CGNAT equipment > provides an External Address, how the CPE could provide an initial PCP > MAP request with an External IP Address when the CGNAT device maintains > them. The draft says: If a PCP request contains the PREFER_FAILURE option and has zero in the Suggested External Port field, or has the all-zeros IPv4 or all- zeros IPv6 address in the Suggested External Address field, it is invalid. I believe it should say: If a PCP request contains the PREFER_FAILURE option and has zero in the Suggested External Port field, or has the all-zeros IPv4 or all- ......................................^^ "and" zeros IPv6 address in the Suggested External Address field, it is invalid. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking is the canonical document explaining the interworking function, which doesn't go into that level of detail. Would that fix the problem? -d > On a MAPPING update, I could see providing an Suggested External > Address > > > I understand that UPnP IGDv1 client allows to dictate mapping a specific > port, but its unclear in a CGNAT/DS-LITE environment how to specify an > Suggested External IP address. > > > On a MAPPING update, I could see providing an Suggested External > Address, but don't understand how a CPE provide the Suggested External > Address on an initial MAP request. > > > 13.2. PREFER_FAILURE Option for MAP Opcode > ... > > > > If a PCP request contains the PREFER_FAILURE option and has zero in > > the Suggested External Port field, or has the all-zeros IPv4 or > all- > > zeros IPv6 address in the Suggested External Address field, it is > > invalid. The PCP server MUST reject such a message with the > > MALFORMED_OPTION error code. > > _______________________________________________ > pcp mailing list > pcp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp From tireddy@cisco.com Thu Feb 14 21:46:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1BAC21F86DD for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:46:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D+tgpDrEC6Xo for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:46:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1758021F856E for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:46:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7187; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1360907200; x=1362116800; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=zY8uzeiOz3g9dzJsA3jcexM3nZE5CXXxtq+I++L5hRc=; b=diuwF0gk2PYx+I+WsMysSnUx53drC5TeYjg7ah+jqj73YH4EVadZnktk ieQECkd5ZremEKXn7JykdQK+L/UOr1kJHHXSiOEnDp/TsznbiDzwEOI82 YWhTHKD+mcLtBd+vb6Od6pldFqwzU1S2Tp8mauQaLN0DOSzrq4dA66uVN o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsFAGvKHVGtJV2b/2dsb2JhbAA7CYN0vHEWc4IfAQEBBAEBAWsXBAIBCBEBAwEBCwMaBycLFAMGCAIEARIIAYgJBwW9Fo0uEoNiYQOIMI8UjzeDB4FrJBg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,670,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="177373575" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Feb 2013 05:46:36 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1F5kanw029727 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:46:36 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.195]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:46:36 -0600 From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" , "pcp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 Thread-Index: AQHN3uybfXVjAbB6bU6t4S6LHaLs+ZgizVgwgClNTICAAAN+wIAqmosggAAJ8YA= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:46:36 +0000 Message-ID: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A14918984@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> References: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A148C07A6@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EA601E417@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A148E56D5@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EAEE11EF5@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EAEE11EF5@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.65.77.197] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:46:43 -0000 Hi Med, Please see inline. Best Regards, --Tiru. > -----Original Message----- > From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 9:50 PM > To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy); pcp@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 >=20 > Hi Tiru, >=20 > Please see inline. >=20 > Cheers, > Med >=20 > >-----Message d'origine----- > >De : Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) [mailto:tireddy@cisco.com] > >Envoy=E9 : jeudi 17 janvier 2013 13:27 > >=C0 : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; pcp@ietf.org > >Objet : RE: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 > > > >Hi Med, > > > >Please see inline [Tiru] > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > >[mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:00 PM > >> To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy); pcp@ietf.org > >> Subject: RE: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 > >> > >> Hi Tiru, > >> > >> Many thanks for the comments. > >> > >> Please see inline. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Med > >> > >> >-----Message d'origine----- > >> >De : Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) [mailto:tireddy@cisco.com] > >> >Envoy=E9 : vendredi 21 d=E9cembre 2012 07:43 > >> >=C0 : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; pcp@ietf.org > >> >Objet : Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 > >> > > >> >Hi Med, > >> > > >> >Comments > >> > > >> >[1] Section 3 PCP Server Discovery and Provisioning : > >> >You may also want to add details that PCP Proxy would use > >> >similar mechanism just like PCP client to discover the PCP server. > >> > >> Med: I updated the text with an explicit ref to Section 8.1 > >of draft-ietf-pcp- > >> base. > >> > >> > > >> >[2] Section 5 Control of the Firewall : > >> >Firewall rules would be typically to block any unsolicited > >> >traffic from outside to inside. For PCP request/response this > >> >will not be a problem, but would have issues with unsolicited > >> >ANNOUNCE. In this case PCP Authentication looks mandatory to > >> >handle man-in-middle attacks trying to act as PCP Server. > >> > >> Med: is that a problem even if the pcp server is known to > >the pcp proxy ? > > > >The PCP server could be in a different administrative domain > >that may or may have IP source guard; attacker can spoof the > >well-known IP address of the PCP server and send ANNOUNCE. PCP > >authentication looks mandatory. >=20 > Med: Why is this specific to PCP Proxy case ? In this leg, the PCP Proxy = is > acting as a PCP Client. Security considerations discussed in the base spe= c > apply here. - The behavior of the PCP proxy needs to be defined to ensure message integ= rity after updating the PCP message for the use cases described in sections= 6 and 7 when PCP Authentication is in place. - PCP proxy must also validate message integrity of messages from PCP clien= t and server (please refer to REQ-15, REQ-16 in http://tools.ietf.org/html/= draft-reddy-pcp-auth-req-00 )=20 - Since PCP proxy is acting as PCP client and communicating with PCP server= in a different domain, usage of PCP Authentication needs to be explained n= ot just for PCP Proxy Authentication with the PCP server, message integrity= of PCP messages, but also to ensure that PCP Proxy is communicating with a= valid PCP server. >=20 > > > >> > >> > > >> >[3] Section 5 : Replace REMOTE_PEER_FILTER with FILTER option > >> > >> Med: Fixed. Thanks. > >> > >> > > >> >[4] Section 8 MAP/PEER handling : you may also want to clarify > >> >PCP proxy behavior when PCP client uses THIRD_PARTY option. > >> > >> Med: I updated the text to explicitly require the PCP server > >follows the pcp > >> server recommendations detailed in section 13.1 of > >draft-ietf-pcp-base. > >> > >> > > >> >[5] Section 10.1 Multiple PCP servers : There could be another > >> >scenarios that PCP proxy would forward the PCP request to one > >> >of the PCP servers depending on the fields set in PCP request > >> >(for specific use cases please refer to > >> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rpcw-pcp-pmipv6-serv-discovery > >> >-00 , > >> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-pcp-mobile-deployment-02# > >> >section-8)] > >> > > >> > >> Med: what change you want to see in that section? Thanks. > > > >The PCP proxy based on various fields set in the PCP request, > >client identity will forward the PCP request to different PCP > >servers. For example in the case of PMIPv6 based on the UE > >subscription traffic offload rules will be installed on the > >MAG. MAG acting as PCP proxy can either handle the PCP request > >in the local access network itself or relay the PCP request to > >the PCP server in the home network. I guess similar mechanism > >would be needed in 3GPP network with SIPTO. >=20 > Med: I added this sentence: >=20 > "The PCP Proxy MAY rely on some fields (e.g., Zone ID [I-D.penno-pcp-zone= s] in > the PCP request to redirect the request to a given PCP Server." Yes this new change looks good. Zone ID draft has expired long time back, y= ou may want to change the example or check if this draft will be re-publish= ed.=20 >=20 > > > >> > >> >[6] How is it ensured that only the PCP proxy can communicate > >> >with the PCP server and not any other PCP client ? > >> > >> Med: Should this be part of the PCP Proxy spec ? > > > >This can be solved by simple techniques like ACL to block PCP > >client from communicating directly with the PCP server. You > >can mention it in security considerations. >=20 > Med: I added this sentence to the security section: >=20 > "The device embedding the PCP Proxy MAY block PCP requests directly sent = to > the PCP Server. This control can be enforced using access control list." Looks good. --Tiru. >=20 > > > >--Tiru. > > > >> > >> > > >> >--Tiru. > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] > >On Behalf Of > >> >> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > >> >> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 5:33 PM > >> >> To: pcp@ietf.org > >> >> Subject: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 > >> >> > >> >> Dear all, > >> >> > >> >> A new version is now available online: > >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 > >> >> > >> >> The main changes in -01 are as follows: > >> >> > >> >> * The reference architecture is updated: the PCP proxy is > >> >not restricted to > >> >> the CP router deployment case. > >> >> * Add a new section to specify the behaviour when the PCP > >> >Proxy is not > >> >> co-located with a NAT function > >> >> * Add a new section for mappings repair > >> >> * More discussion for the multiple PCP Servers scenario > >> >> * Text is cleanup > >> >> > >> >> A detailed diff is available here: > >> >> > >> >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pcp-proxy-01 > >> >> > >> >> Please review this new version and provide input. > >> >> > >> >> Cheers, > >> >> Med > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> pcp mailing list > >> >> pcp@ietf.org > >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp > >> > > >> > > > From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Fri Feb 15 02:01:20 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4217B21F89FC for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 02:01:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.115 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.115 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HqdFOuUXdPZK for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 02:01:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF4621F89EF for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 02:01:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm10.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 7171C26409C for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:01:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from puexch91.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.48]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 5AACB35C045 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:01:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by puexch91.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.48]) with mapi; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:01:18 +0100 From: To: "pcp@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:01:17 +0100 Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-boucadair-pcp-failure-05.txt Thread-Index: Ac4LYsE1eAuN0CmRSaKsYmKHE1JFGwAAFaQQ Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EAFB56A89@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> Accept-Language: fr-FR Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.12.31.121227 Subject: [pcp] TR: I-D Action: draft-boucadair-pcp-failure-05.txt X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:01:20 -0000 Dear all, FYI.=20 We are planning to request WG adoption for this draft.=20 Cheers, Med -----Message d'origine----- De : i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] D= e la part de internet-drafts@ietf.org Envoy=E9 : vendredi 15 f=E9vrier 2013 10:56 =C0 : i-d-announce@ietf.org Objet : I-D Action: draft-boucadair-pcp-failure-05.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. Title : Port Control Protocol (PCP) Failure Scenarios Author(s) : Mohamed Boucadair Reinaldo Penno Filename : draft-boucadair-pcp-failure-05.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2013-02-15 Abstract: This document identifies and analyzes several PCP failure scenarios. Identifying these failure scenarios are useful to assess the efficiency of the protocol and also to decide whether new extensions are needed to the base PCP. A procedure to retrieve the explicit dynamic mapping(s) from the PCP Server is proposed. This procedure relies upon the use of a new PCP OpCode and Option: GET/NEXT. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-pcp-failure There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-failure-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-boucadair-pcp-failure-05 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt From repenno@cisco.com Fri Feb 15 04:41:52 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AEEC21F8651 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 04:41:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HJrQiPfiXs03 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 04:41:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389B221F8648 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 04:41:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12366; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1360932111; x=1362141711; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=XABgmnbRlTm76ZlmFExktMiCtbMgEpjyDLlqaAu9ByA=; b=Ho0SdGgBnc/scUPnehd1Zb9OLkM2NjS+y01Xta0/i0NP79PCnIFYgVzj 7fwrGuO0XhFFJROD4bJPHMt+jRcZWeI7jkkhkaMTkoAViAlovsBkiEc+D c85lDBvYc37p4G2Gm1yLVZZ45nnLCjHS2niFsiaYWqaevx84bfLe5GUow E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmMFAF8sHlGtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABEgkO1BwGJGRZzgiEBBHkSASpWJQIEDg0BiAkMvSeRImEDkmuEWY83gweCJw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,673,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="177547172" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Feb 2013 12:41:50 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1FCfo8k002087 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:41:50 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.112]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 06:41:50 -0600 From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" To: "pcp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: PCP Tentative Agenda So far - IETF 86 Thread-Index: AQHOC3nTIumJ1V2nuU6qIX31xMDwMw== Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:41:50 +0000 Message-ID: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040900CC39@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805 x-originating-ip: [10.21.144.25] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040900CC39xmbrcdx04ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [pcp] PCP Tentative Agenda So far - IETF 86 X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:41:52 -0000 --_000_45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040900CC39xmbrcdx04ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, This is the tentative agenda so far in no specific order or priority. Pleas= e let Chairs know of any missing requests or needed corrections. [1] "Using PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT" http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-nat-reveal-00 Time: 10 min Presenter: Mohamed Boucadair [2] "PCP Server Selection" http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-00 (multi-homing draft is already merged with this draft) Time: 10 min Presenter: Mohamed Boucadair [3] "Optimizing NAT and Firewall Keepalives Using (PCP)" http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reddy-pcp-optimize-keepalives-01 Time: 15 min Presenter: TBD [4] Title: PCP-PANA Implementation Report Time: 15 min Presenter: Yoshihiro Ohba [5] "PCP Flow Examples" https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-pcp-flow-examples Time: 10 min Presenter: Mohamed Boucadair [6] "PCP Anycast" http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cheshire-pcp-anycast-00.txt Time: 15 min Presenter: Stuart Cheshire [7] "Recursive PCP" http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cheshire-recursive-pcp-00.txt Time: 15 min Presenter: Stuart Cheshire [8] PCP Authentication Requirements http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reddy-pcp-auth-req-00 Time needed : 40 minutes Presenter: Dan Wing [9] PCP Radius Extensions http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-maglione-pcp-radius-ext-05 Time: 10 minutes Presenter: TBD [10] PCP Failure Scenarios http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-failure-05 Time: 15 minutes Presenter: Mohamed Boucadair [11] PCP Proxy http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-02 Time 15 min Presenter: Mohamed Boucadair --_000_45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040900CC39xmbrcdx04ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
tentative agenda so far in no spe= cific order or priority. Please let Chairs know of any missing requests or = needed corrections. 
http= ://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-nat-reveal-00
htt= p://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-00
Mohamed= Boucadair
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reddy-pcp-optimize-keepalives-01
[5] "PCP Flow Examples"
http://w= ww.ietf.org/id/draft-cheshire-pcp-anycast-00.txt
http:/= /www.ietf.org/id/draft-cheshire-recursive-pcp-00.txt
http://too= ls.ietf.org/html/draft-reddy-pcp-auth-req-00
    Time: 10 minutes
    Presenter: TBD
[10] PCP Failure Scenarios
     Time: 15 minutes
     Presenter: Mohamed Boucadair
[11] PCP Proxy
     Time 15 min
     Presenter: Mohamed Boucadair
=

--_000_45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040900CC39xmbrcdx04ciscoc_-- From sardella@comcast.net Fri Feb 15 05:16:00 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6163821F861C for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:16:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.437 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HP1fSojB1Kfu for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:15:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB65A21F8621 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:15:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from omta24.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.76]) by qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 0bso1l0021ei1Bg51dFzfe; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:15:59 +0000 Received: from sardella.org ([66.31.217.2]) by omta24.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 0dFx1l00N03hDFm3kdFyds; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:15:59 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sardella.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id r1FDFKbE005770 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:15:20 -0500 Message-ID: <511E350D.7080108@comcast.net> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:15:57 -0500 From: Norman Sardella User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Wing References: <511D40B5.70104@comcast.net> <081201ce0b01$9c7f14d0$d57d3e70$@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <081201ce0b01$9c7f14d0$d57d3e70$@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1360934159; bh=w3+hkIxzQl0hL7dU6liUHy/NaoQsC676ow6am3vaj1M=; h=Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To: Subject:Content-Type; b=SzEtObkX+3drM/vs+qnYw/d8oHLH1Y1qKayWWq0bo5xiHSbOY6Js5DGgSC4EfQelJ rc56xhvZ4uCMGo1mm5PiiZAsgnifnRA0nvisL6cLFcUnGkT0zJTT/CNbEHV+zxBqBm iY2Nto653ns06uOughZ9ElEze0CCMOWj5L3Ehzn9bTdIEEISxrYtu+kOyukVCsaBjU 8iOsGjOzEYLgqPkA4wFy0y4uEiBERDVKcjIRdZKDwQ9UtBh+MRsxz3lCqHSYZPhPjy dTtcANxL1JW4INgI+9Iw3JbwO01QiKiKgAzon9LhBDKdKLlUQSJgleyBb42Zq9NZl2 9mUZTUQBUtwFA== Cc: pcp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [pcp] PCP Draft 29 question about PREFER_FAILURE and Suggested External Address field of all zeroes X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:16:00 -0000 Yes, I'm good with that. Thanks On 02/14/2013 05:21 PM, Dan Wing wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Norman Sardella >> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:53 AM >> To: pcp@ietf.org >> Subject: [pcp] PCP Draft 29 question about PREFER_FAILURE and Suggested >> External Address field of all zeroes >> >> In draft-ietf-pcp-base-29, >> "Section 13.2. PREFER_FAILURE Option for MAP Opcode", The draft >> mentions that when PREFER_FAILURE is set, >> "all-zeros IPv4 or all-zeros IPv6 address in the Suggested External >> Address field, it is invalid." >> >> Is this a valid case? Its unclear in a CGNAT/DS-LITE environment where >> the CPE would be running a UPnP to PCP gateway and the CGNAT equipment >> provides an External Address, how the CPE could provide an initial PCP >> MAP request with an External IP Address when the CGNAT device maintains >> them. > > The draft says: > > If a PCP request contains the PREFER_FAILURE option and has zero in > the Suggested External Port field, or has the all-zeros IPv4 or all- > zeros IPv6 address in the Suggested External Address field, it is > invalid. > > I believe it should say: > > If a PCP request contains the PREFER_FAILURE option and has zero in > the Suggested External Port field, or has the all-zeros IPv4 or all- > ......................................^^ > "and" > zeros IPv6 address in the Suggested External Address field, it is > invalid. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking is the > canonical document explaining the interworking function, which doesn't > go into that level of detail. > > Would that fix the problem? > > -d > >> On a MAPPING update, I could see providing an Suggested External >> Address >> >> >> I understand that UPnP IGDv1 client allows to dictate mapping a specific >> port, but its unclear in a CGNAT/DS-LITE environment how to specify an >> Suggested External IP address. >> >> >> On a MAPPING update, I could see providing an Suggested External >> Address, but don't understand how a CPE provide the Suggested External >> Address on an initial MAP request. >> >>> 13.2. PREFER_FAILURE Option for MAP Opcode >> ... >>> >>> If a PCP request contains the PREFER_FAILURE option and has zero in >>> the Suggested External Port field, or has the all-zeros IPv4 or >> all- >>> zeros IPv6 address in the Suggested External Address field, it is >>> invalid. The PCP server MUST reject such a message with the >>> MALFORMED_OPTION error code. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pcp mailing list >> pcp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp From repenno@cisco.com Sat Feb 16 04:20:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B11D21F8700 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 04:20:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XZI8Olf7uxiT for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 04:20:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B440521F84F4 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 04:20:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1506; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361017254; x=1362226854; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=NZRMqjqtMV+yp+ElOsqGnb/jDIA6ylj4KRswoBwg6R8=; b=LA5EpTSV2wpgT5AfX7bP1cDt6wtBjHX/dC9VrTB4NAKlxjXEP4vb6ep1 z7nnA5pjxnJxezX9W6xcj7YD4F4KdBiLO+erQ5s0tevEGve9IlO0oC+JO L/UkPogAa2XD9DHZJexiipKRICwy2T5UhTzNO3kIzAl0gMKPf74xNuhbn Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EADx4H1GtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABFwB18FnOCIQEEOlEBKhRCJQIEEwgBiAkMnAygUY8AOIJfYQOXSY87gweCJw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,678,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="174854987" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Feb 2013 12:20:54 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1GCKsvI000967 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:20:54 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.112]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 06:20:53 -0600 From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" To: "pcp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: PCP Server Discovery based on well-known IP Address Thread-Index: AQHODEAPjKSKasKsX0ap3DMQNyIXCw== Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:20:52 +0000 Message-ID: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040900E347@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <20130216121615.27459.50464.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805 x-originating-ip: [10.21.145.221] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <08DB6B50755A2448BE114321CB0C92A9@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [pcp] PCP Server Discovery based on well-known IP Address X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:20:55 -0000 Hello, We submitted a new draft proposing using anycast address for PCP Server discovery and operation. Thanks, Reinaldo On 2/16/13 10:16 AM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" wrote: > >A new version of I-D, draft-kiesel-pcp-ip-based-srv-disc-00.txt >has been successfully submitted by Reinaldo Penno and posted to the >IETF repository. > >Filename: draft-kiesel-pcp-ip-based-srv-disc >Revision: 00 >Title: PCP Server Discovery based on well-known IP Address >Creation date: 2013-02-16 >Group: Individual Submission >Number of pages: 17 >URL: =20 >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kiesel-pcp-ip-based-srv-disc-00. >txt >Status: =20 >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kiesel-pcp-ip-based-srv-disc >Htmlized: =20 >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kiesel-pcp-ip-based-srv-disc-00 > > >Abstract: > The Port Control Protocol (PCP) provides a mechanism to control how > incoming packets are forwarded by upstream devices such as Network > Address Translator IPv6/IPv4 (NAT64), Network Address Translator > IPv4/IPv4 (NAT44), IPv6 and IPv4 firewall devices, and a mechanism to > reduce application keep alive traffic. > > This document establishes a well-known IP address for the PCP Server > and documents how PCP clients embedded in endpoints can use it during > the discovery and regular operation phases. > > > =20 > =20 > > >The IETF Secretariat > From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Feb 19 04:30:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C9D21F8C38; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:30:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.559 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bm4Os+-a5wKk; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:30:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D12E21F89FD; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:30:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.40 Message-ID: <20130219123015.32530.14474.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:30:15 -0800 Cc: pcp@ietf.org Subject: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-06.txt X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:30:16 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Port Control Protocol Working Group of th= e IETF. Title : DHCP Options for the Port Control Protocol (PCP) Author(s) : Mohamed Boucadair Reinaldo Penno Dan Wing Filename : draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-06.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2013-02-19 Abstract: This document specifies DHCP (IPv4 and IPv6) options to configure hosts with Port Control Protocol (PCP) Server names. The use of DHCPv4 or DHCPv6 depends on the PCP deployment scenario. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-06 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From repenno@cisco.com Tue Feb 19 14:32:06 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7378F21F8AF8 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:32:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iCxJ2DCzJVXp for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:32:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAD9F21F882C for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:32:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2282; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361313126; x=1362522726; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=xWhYPOwYW3VaaTe/Ujc7eXMB542m9FYQgg38W8drJ6c=; b=JwXklSetlKlbP7tnPviKki545aPjcUjzAM65V0vqFDhz5cHgcdHTWFvd OBVzMC1orCGRgw5wOKpafQPI1p86p19UrB3lEWp63LGD11aK7ri6E3xhg jaDZrwTuVz5JsHsdmnUzzGhNUDKLG/nCM9K/DCMtPZlZCC8YPqB+xJIH3 s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAKX7I1GtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABFwEKBDRZzgiEBBDpRASoUQicEGwGICQyfGpETkCiOXYMXYQOSbIRcjzuDB4In X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,697,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="178910481" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Feb 2013 22:32:05 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1JMW5PV009095 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:32:05 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.112]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:32:05 -0600 From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" To: "pcp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: PCP Tentative Agenda so Far - IETF 86 Thread-Index: AQHODvDxm8WqC630UUe68jJyt0CmCQ== Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:32:04 +0000 Message-ID: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040900F2E1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805 x-originating-ip: [10.21.76.2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [pcp] PCP Tentative Agenda so Far - IETF 86 X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:32:06 -0000 And as before, in no priority or specific order. Chairs reserve the right to adjust as needed :) [1] "Using PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT" http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-nat-reveal-00 Time: 10 min Presenter: Mohamed Boucadair [2] "PCP Server Selection" http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-00 (multi-homing draft is already merged with this draft) Time: 10 min Presenter: Mohamed Boucadair [3] "Optimizing NAT and Firewall Keepalives Using (PCP)" http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reddy-pcp-optimize-keepalives-01 Time: 15 min Presenter: TBD [4] Title: PCP-PANA Implementation Report Time: 15 min Presenter: Yoshihiro Ohba [5] "PCP Flow Examples" https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-pcp-flow-examples Time: 10 min Presenter: Mohamed Boucadair [6] "PCP Anycast" http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cheshire-pcp-anycast-00.txt Time: 15 min Presenter: Stuart Cheshire [7] "Recursive PCP" http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cheshire-recursive-pcp-00.txt Time: 15 min Presenter: Stuart Cheshire [8] PCP Authentication Requirements http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reddy-pcp-auth-req-00 Time needed : 40 minutes Presenter: Dan Wing [9] PCP Radius Extensions http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-maglione-pcp-radius-ext-05 Time: 10 minutes Presenter: TBD [10] PCP Failure Scenarios http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-failure-05 Time: 15 minutes Presenter: Mohamed Boucadair [11] PCP Proxy http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-02 Time 15 min Presenter: Mohamed Boucadair [12] PCP Nested NAT/Middlebox http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-pcp-nested-nat-03 Time: 10 min Presenter: Reinaldo Penno [13] PCP Nat Coord URL TBD Time: 20 min Presenter: Simon Perreault [14] PCP Server Discovery Based on Well-Known Address http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kiesel-pcp-ip-based-srv-disc-00 Time: 10 min Presenter: Reinaldo Penno [15] DHCP Options for the Port Control Protocol (PCP) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-06 Time: 15 min Presenter: Mohamed Boucadair From simon.perreault@viagenie.ca Mon Feb 25 10:48:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA40421F92E7 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:48:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dKCYuQfPpG1J for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:48:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83F3F21F92D0 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:48:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from porto.nomis80.org (85-169-43-76.rev.numericable.fr [85.169.43.76]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB2FA4135B for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:48:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <512BB1FF.2070607@viagenie.ca> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:48:31 +0100 From: Simon Perreault User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130219 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pcp@ietf.org" References: <20130225183536.25195.69904.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20130225183536.25195.69904.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20130225183536.25195.69904.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [pcp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10.txt X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:48:38 -0000 WG, This is a complete rewrite based on WGLC comments. - What we propose is now a MAP option (instead of a brand new opcode). - Completely new background and motivation text. - Addresses more directly the additional use cases identified during WGLC. - Simplified a lot. The draft is now much shorter and hopefully easier to understand. Please have a look! Thanks, Simon -------- Message original -------- Sujet: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10.txt Date : Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:35:36 -0800 De : internet-drafts@ietf.org Pour : simon.perreault@viagenie.ca Copie à : ssenthil@cisco.com, sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, cathy.zhou@huawei.com, tina.tsou.zouting@huawei.com A new version of I-D, draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10.txt has been successfully submitted by Simon Perreault and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord Revision: 10 Title: Port Control Protocol (PCP) Extension for Port Set Allocation Creation date: 2013-02-22 Group: Individual Submission Number of pages: 10 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10 Abstract: This document defines an extension to PCP allowing clients to manipulate sets of ports as a whole. This is accomplished by a new MAP option: PORT_SET. The IETF Secretariat From simon.perreault@viagenie.ca Mon Feb 25 10:55:46 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7BE21E808B for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:55:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bYO6Yu8ldt7z for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:55:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F93A21E8042 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:55:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from porto.nomis80.org (85-169-43-76.rev.numericable.fr [85.169.43.76]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29C744135B for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:55:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <512BB390.7090400@viagenie.ca> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:55:12 +0100 From: Simon Perreault User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130219 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pcp@ietf.org References: <20130225183536.25195.69904.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <512BB1FF.2070607@viagenie.ca> In-Reply-To: <512BB1FF.2070607@viagenie.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [pcp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10.txt X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:55:46 -0000 Le 2013-02-25 19:48, Simon Perreault a écrit : > This is a complete rewrite based on WGLC comments. > > - What we propose is now a MAP option (instead of a brand new opcode). > - Completely new background and motivation text. > - Addresses more directly the additional use cases identified during WGLC. > - Simplified a lot. The draft is now much shorter and hopefully easier > to understand. s/WGLC/call for adoption/g Simon -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca From cheshire@apple.com Mon Feb 25 19:25:45 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 110F621E8162 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:25:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KjdxmeyXW1cd for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:25:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-out.apple.com (mail-out.apple.com [17.151.62.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 956DB21E815E for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:25:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Received: from relay2.apple.com ([17.128.113.67]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MIT00CTJ5IT6GL2@mail-out.apple.com> for pcp@ietf.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:25:42 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 11807143-b7f896d000006d55-0a-512c2b35967d Received: from [17.193.13.41] (chesh1.apple.com [17.193.13.41]) by relay2.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 8F.B1.27989.53B2C215; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:25:41 -0800 (PST) In-reply-to: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F060408FFA42D@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> References: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F060408FFA42D@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Message-id: <690F65A7-2CB5-49CE-A026-4824CCB803B5@apple.com> From: Stuart Cheshire Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:25:39 -0800 To: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" , Dave Thaler X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUieJBXU9dUWyfQ4N1Rc4tLK46wWkw+9pvV 4uGb9ywOzB5Tfm9k9Viy5CeTR+uOv+wBzFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGW9WfmIq2MVasW7pJsYG xoUsXYycHBICJhJfb15kg7DFJC7cWw9mCwlsYJR4+D8LxOYU8JWY/P8IE0TcR+L+pN9gNq+A kcTVyVPZuxg5OJgFXCQWTsmDCNtIXN7aygpiMwsoSkx9fwzKlpfY/nYOM4jNJqAl8eLzFbBV wgL2Eh8vn2QEsVkEVCX6vs1nB7FFBCIlJi2fDHWanMTh068YJzDyz0KyeRbC5llINixgZF7F KFCUmpNYaaSXWFCQk6qXnJ+7iREUgg2FzjsYjy2zOsQowMGoxMOr0aEdKMSaWFZcmXuIUYKD WUmElzMDKMSbklhZlVqUH19UmpNafIhRmoNFSZzX9glQSiA9sSQ1OzW1ILUIJsvEwSnVwMi1 fK5L8p2nG2YIaQk/3b5x4fxjG0XP/2ELC8iu+WFpyH8/KbDu+8a07t9rEmpc7hdeeWuYZSkd 3KZ6/n7K5/vmBxesWhZtyGNcXOHzPVS8z96FcxL3Dtst04qC///Urf0iOE/UXiKyfW7XvOdh LDyn3Na/DPyjsesvU5mi3+6St8Vret7ESSixFGckGmoxFxUnAgCgm2xkPQIAAA== Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pcp] PCP Call for Agenda Items at IETF 86 Orlando X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 03:25:45 -0000 On 7 Feb, 2013, at 15:45, Reinaldo Penno (repenno) wrote: > Hello, > > Please send slot requests to the chairs or reply to this email. In > your request include presentation title, URL pointer to draft (if > any), presenter and time needed. Can we add a ten-minute discussion of my four-page draft PCP Address Invalidation? This is not something I have energy to devote a lot of time to -- I just wrote it as a public service to the PCP community. We should either adopt it as a WG document and publish it, or abandon it. I think we should ask for WG consensus on which to do. Stuart Cheshire From repenno@cisco.com Mon Feb 25 20:06:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A52021E817F for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:06:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dCg6fqW36uuW for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:06:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FD5D21E8173 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:06:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=803; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361851563; x=1363061163; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=M/N8fE3EuhAKhsToUdbir94EmyCXp5i7VqZv1AvZ6HU=; b=c1/38zf9yFe8sd2EXvdTAZXRWqCLZkmeZoyTgQrAhilB6D6mpz3SUi/f Ykl9ZJDGoYZlcrXUV3/ovtJ2tiK3cEP8BRYb3kT63C1EBhJsUfhvDmtMk BghOcb89Mk/SiLNBoEav6V2ubHRrM1NP0rVZF61z+2wDbyWsJopeK0H9k 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnwFAG0zLFGtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABFhgi7WIEDFnOCHwEBAQQdHT8SAQgYChRCJQIEAQ0FCAyHfwywAo9+BI09gSAxB4JfYQOnIoJ6DYFyNQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,736,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="181115917" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Feb 2013 04:06:02 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1Q462Zq009493 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 04:06:02 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.112]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:06:02 -0600 From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" To: Stuart Cheshire , Dave Thaler Thread-Topic: [pcp] PCP Call for Agenda Items at IETF 86 Orlando Thread-Index: AQHOBY01AaBwOovgbEut2XYoaA9ivJiL+2CA///Y/gA= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 04:06:01 +0000 Message-ID: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F060409012585@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <690F65A7-2CB5-49CE-A026-4824CCB803B5@apple.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805 x-originating-ip: [10.21.77.161] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <69E0A0D143F4004B8530E50FBD8F92B0@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pcp] PCP Call for Agenda Items at IETF 86 Orlando X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 04:06:04 -0000 Yes, I will add a slot. On 2/26/13 12:25 AM, "Stuart Cheshire" wrote: >On 7 Feb, 2013, at 15:45, Reinaldo Penno (repenno) wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Please send slot requests to the chairs or reply to this email. In >> your request include presentation title, URL pointer to draft (if >> any), presenter and time needed. > >Can we add a ten-minute discussion of my four-page draft PCP Address >Invalidation? > > > >This is not something I have energy to devote a lot of time to -- I >just wrote it as a public service to the PCP community. We should >either adopt it as a WG document and publish it, or abandon it. I >think we should ask for WG consensus on which to do. > >Stuart Cheshire > From dwing@cisco.com Tue Feb 26 14:25:11 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427FF21F8836 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:25:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B4CsIE07OFG8 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:25:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-3.cisco.com (ams-iport-3.cisco.com [144.254.224.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 050D521F87D3 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:25:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3559; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361917510; x=1363127110; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=v9ORiUKLsKu9dLa7HbuqXgJBgWbkoXFYjUwrL/oVWCk=; b=Urodk2Sv5jQH1Z4HSXkLFt88uJsveu3wwRf/yrJqvgG6FyW123Bla1eI Iy7w1ichwvVVyTrxddvUwoRi2QPWzahqeSd3cOnzSWViAN111mqBDQ5vc NMyTvD4q9Bm2u/qOJT5GWSGHxgJQ5ttjKgZx/VhWAz2p4nqhi4tl6NWb1 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAG41LVGQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABFhk+7K4EBFnOCHwEBAQMBAQEBBQITBgRHCQIFBwEDAgkRBAEBAwIjAwICGQ4fCQgCBBMLBYd9BgysNYENgkCQCoEjjB6BSAsHBoIngRMDiGqFLIgqgR6PSoMpgUg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,743,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="12077699" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Feb 2013 22:25:09 +0000 Received: from DWINGWS01 ([10.156.16.51]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1QMP7li027013; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:25:08 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Simon Perreault'" References: <20130225183536.25195.69904.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <512BB1FF.2070607@viagenie.ca> <512BB390.7090400@viagenie.ca> In-Reply-To: <512BB390.7090400@viagenie.ca> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:25:07 -0800 Message-ID: <050b01ce1470$22799890$676cc9b0$@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQLlEyGxkYHNqKQQ4+u21SnvQ9p7gAJwPVJaAm2WoCiWN8XuAA== Content-Language: en-us Cc: pcp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [pcp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10.txt X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:25:11 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Simon Perreault > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:55 AM > To: pcp@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [pcp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-pcp- > natcoord-10.txt >=20 > Le 2013-02-25 19:48, Simon Perreault a =C3=A9crit : >=20 > > This is a complete rewrite based on WGLC comments. > > > > - What we propose is now a MAP option (instead of a brand new = opcode). > > - Completely new background and motivation text. > > - Addresses more directly the additional use cases identified during > WGLC. > > - Simplified a lot. The draft is now much shorter and hopefully = easier > > to understand. >=20 > s/WGLC/call for adoption/g I like what is proposed now and it seems to fit better into PCP. Thanks for the changes. A few issues and comments: 1. The "P" bit comes from pcp-base's reserved range. That bit is not=20 assignable to an option (layering violation). 2. Eventually will need a discussion of the interaction of that "P" bit=20 with draft-boucadair-pcp-rtp-rtcp, or can one draft subsume the other=20 draft? What happens if a request contains both options, and how does the "P" bit interact with the draft-boucadair-pcp-rtp-rtcp option? 3. natcoord-10 says "If the Port Set Size is zero or one, a=20 MALFORMED_OPTION error is returned." Disallowing a port set size of=20 one seems overly restrictive, especially when later in the same=20 section there is allowance that if the server cannot fulfill the=20 requested port set size, the server maps one port. I agree a port set size of 0 is nonsensical. 4. The paragraph starting with "If the PREFER_FAILURE option is absent" and the paragraph below it, could benefit from editing to enhance their clarity and exactly how the server reacts in those edge conditions. 5. "If a mapping already exists and the PORT_SET option can be honored" could also benefit from some editing to aid clarity. For example, let's say a single port is mapped (internal port =3D 5000), and then PORT_ SET is used with internal port=3D6000. It needs to be clearer what = happens there -- is the new request 'honored' by destroying the previous=20 mapping and creating this new one, or is only a single port mapped or something else? Related, need a discussion in the document of what=20 happens if PORT_SET is used and a subsequent PCP request adjusts=20 the lifetime of a single port within that port set. 6. In Section 4.3, Port Set Renewal and Deletion, it is unclear how PORT_SET changes the behavior for the Assigned External IP Address versus what is already in=20 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-29#page-32. If the change is intentional, it should be highlighted clearer in natcoord; if it is re-stating what is already in pcp-base, that should be clarified, too (or simply removed). 7. I think the PORT_SET option should be in the non-mandatory to process range. Because the fall back (for when the server=20 doesn't understand PORT_SET) is exactly in line with what existing=20 code would have to handle anyway if the PORT_SET cannot be=20 fulfilled. -d > Simon > -- > DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca > NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca > STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca > _______________________________________________ > pcp mailing list > pcp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Tue Feb 26 22:45:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E95F821F87F9 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:45:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.143 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.143 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oyc82eF72-+j for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:45:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9CA21F87F6 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:45:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 7B4A722C827; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 07:45:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCH71.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.33]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 5B38A35C064; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 07:45:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by PUEXCH71.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.33]) with mapi; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 07:45:19 +0100 From: To: Dan Wing , 'Simon Perreault' Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 07:45:17 +0100 Thread-Topic: [pcp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10.txt Thread-Index: AQLlEyGxkYHNqKQQ4+u21SnvQ9p7gAJwPVJaAm2WoCiWN8XuAIAAi97g Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EB47D6FA2@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <20130225183536.25195.69904.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <512BB1FF.2070607@viagenie.ca> <512BB390.7090400@viagenie.ca> <050b01ce1470$22799890$676cc9b0$@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <050b01ce1470$22799890$676cc9b0$@cisco.com> Accept-Language: fr-FR Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2013.2.19.124517 Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pcp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10.txt X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:45:22 -0000 Hi Dan, Please see inline. Cheers, Med=20 >-----Message d'origine----- >De : pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la=20 >part de Dan Wing >Envoy=E9 : mardi 26 f=E9vrier 2013 23:25 >=C0 : 'Simon Perreault' >Cc : pcp@ietf.org >Objet : Re: [pcp] Fwd: New Version Notification for=20 >draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10.txt > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Simon Perreault >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:55 AM >> To: pcp@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [pcp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-pcp- >> natcoord-10.txt >>=20 >> Le 2013-02-25 19:48, Simon Perreault a =E9crit : >>=20 >> > This is a complete rewrite based on WGLC comments. >> > >> > - What we propose is now a MAP option (instead of a brand=20 >new opcode). >> > - Completely new background and motivation text. >> > - Addresses more directly the additional use cases=20 >identified during >> WGLC. >> > - Simplified a lot. The draft is now much shorter and=20 >hopefully easier >> > to understand. >>=20 >> s/WGLC/call for adoption/g > >I like what is proposed now and it seems to fit better into=20 >PCP. Thanks >for the changes. > > >A few issues and comments: > >1. The "P" bit comes from pcp-base's reserved range. That bit is not=20 >assignable to an option (layering violation). Med: Ok to move the parity bit to the option data field. > >2. Eventually will need a discussion of the interaction of=20 >that "P" bit=20 >with draft-boucadair-pcp-rtp-rtcp, or can one draft subsume the other=20 >draft? What happens if a request contains both options, and how does >the "P" bit interact with the draft-boucadair-pcp-rtp-rtcp option? Med: draft-boucadair-pcp-rtp-rtcp is abandoned in favor of this unified app= roach proposed in the new version. > >3. natcoord-10 says "If the Port Set Size is zero or one, a=20 >MALFORMED_OPTION error is returned." Disallowing a port set size of=20 >one seems overly restrictive, especially when later in the same=20 >section there is allowance that if the server cannot fulfill the=20 >requested port set size, the server maps one port. I agree a port >set size of 0 is nonsensical. Med: It does not make sense to include a PORT_SET to ask for one single por= t. The text you are referring to is when the port set size > 1.=20 > >4. The paragraph starting with "If the PREFER_FAILURE option is absent" >and the paragraph below it, could benefit from editing to enhance their >clarity and exactly how the server reacts in those edge conditions. Med: Noted.=20 > >5. "If a mapping already exists and the PORT_SET option can be honored" >could also benefit from some editing to aid clarity. For=20 >example, let's >say a single port is mapped (internal port =3D 5000), and then PORT_ >SET is used with internal port=3D6000. It needs to be clearer=20 >what happens >there -- is the new request 'honored' by destroying the previous=20 >mapping and creating this new one, or is only a single port mapped or >something else? Related, need a discussion in the document of what=20 >happens if PORT_SET is used and a subsequent PCP request adjusts=20 >the lifetime of a single port within that port set. Med: I guess you want to say PORT_SET with internal port=3D5000, no? An exa= mple may be added to the text to aid clarity. > >6. In Section 4.3, Port Set Renewal and Deletion, it is unclear how >PORT_SET changes the behavior for the Assigned External IP Address >versus what is already in=20 >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-29#page-32. If the >change is intentional, it should be highlighted clearer in natcoord; >if it is re-stating what is already in pcp-base, that should be >clarified, too (or simply removed). Med: Can you explicit what changes are you referring to? Thanks. > >7. I think the PORT_SET option should be in the non-mandatory >to process range. Because the fall back (for when the server=20 >doesn't understand PORT_SET) is exactly in line with what existing=20 >code would have to handle anyway if the PORT_SET cannot be=20 >fulfilled. Med: Works for me. > >-d > >> Simon >> -- >> DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca >> NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca >> STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca >> _______________________________________________ >> pcp mailing list >> pcp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp > >_______________________________________________ >pcp mailing list >pcp@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp >= From simon.perreault@viagenie.ca Wed Feb 27 02:27:50 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3595D21F8548 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:27:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PaWtEELUPZly for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:27:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEF121F850C for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:27:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:660:3001:4012:bcea:a860:12fb:6e6e]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A0DF840407; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 05:27:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <512DDFD9.6050406@viagenie.ca> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:28:41 +0100 From: Simon Perreault User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com References: <20130225183536.25195.69904.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <512BB1FF.2070607@viagenie.ca> <512BB390.7090400@viagenie.ca> <050b01ce1470$22799890$676cc9b0$@cisco.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EB47D6FA2@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EB47D6FA2@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pcp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10.txt X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:27:50 -0000 Le 2013-02-27 07:45, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com a écrit : >> 1. The "P" bit comes from pcp-base's reserved range. That bit is not >> assignable to an option (layering violation). > > Med: Ok to move the parity bit to the option data field. Just to be clear, this would increase the option length to 3 bytes, right? Should we increase it to 4 for padding's sake? >> 3. natcoord-10 says "If the Port Set Size is zero or one, a >> MALFORMED_OPTION error is returned." Disallowing a port set size of >> one seems overly restrictive, especially when later in the same >> section there is allowance that if the server cannot fulfill the >> requested port set size, the server maps one port. I agree a port >> set size of 0 is nonsensical. > > Med: It does not make sense to include a PORT_SET to ask for one single port. The text you are referring to is when the port set size > 1. Well, it is clear that PORT_SET size of 1 is of little usefulness, but it can make sense if you just focus on the semantics. The are the same as a PORT_SET-less MAP request. Usually having two ways of saying the same thing is bad(TM). I'm curious as to why Dan thinks it should still be allowed. >> 5. "If a mapping already exists and the PORT_SET option can be honored" >> could also benefit from some editing to aid clarity. For >> example, let's >> say a single port is mapped (internal port = 5000), and then PORT_ >> SET is used with internal port=6000. It needs to be clearer >> what happens >> there -- is the new request 'honored' by destroying the previous >> mapping and creating this new one, or is only a single port mapped or >> something else? Related, need a discussion in the document of what >> happens if PORT_SET is used and a subsequent PCP request adjusts >> the lifetime of a single port within that port set. > > Med: I guess you want to say PORT_SET with internal port=5000, no? An example may be added to the text to aid clarity. Also assuming internal port=5000, I think we need more than an example. There's undefined behaviour here. >> 6. In Section 4.3, Port Set Renewal and Deletion, it is unclear how >> PORT_SET changes the behavior for the Assigned External IP Address >> versus what is already in >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-29#page-32. If the >> change is intentional, it should be highlighted clearer in natcoord; >> if it is re-stating what is already in pcp-base, that should be >> clarified, too (or simply removed). > > Med: Can you explicit what changes are you referring to? Thanks. I don't understand either. An example would be nice. >> 7. I think the PORT_SET option should be in the non-mandatory >> to process range. Because the fall back (for when the server >> doesn't understand PORT_SET) is exactly in line with what existing >> code would have to handle anyway if the PORT_SET cannot be >> fulfilled. > > Med: Works for me. Me too. Simon From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Wed Feb 27 02:48:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 665DF21F84AD for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:48:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.146 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YCKJ939AJXej for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:48:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9763E21F84AB for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:48:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by omfedm10.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 3A57C2642B4; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:48:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCH81.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.34]) by omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1E8E927C053; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:48:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by PUEXCH81.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.34]) with mapi; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:48:41 +0100 From: To: Simon Perreault Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:48:39 +0100 Thread-Topic: [pcp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10.txt Thread-Index: Ac4U1RnPCdr5isOFSI2QgoQNb/kc6wAAEz/A Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EB47D714C@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <20130225183536.25195.69904.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <512BB1FF.2070607@viagenie.ca> <512BB390.7090400@viagenie.ca> <050b01ce1470$22799890$676cc9b0$@cisco.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EB47D6FA2@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <512DDFD9.6050406@viagenie.ca> In-Reply-To: <512DDFD9.6050406@viagenie.ca> Accept-Language: fr-FR Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2013.2.19.124517 Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pcp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10.txt X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:48:43 -0000 Hi Simon, Please see inline. Cheers, Med=20 >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perreault@viagenie.ca]=20 >Envoy=E9 : mercredi 27 f=E9vrier 2013 11:29 >=C0 : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN >Cc : Dan Wing; pcp@ietf.org >Objet : Re: [pcp] Fwd: New Version Notification for=20 >draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10.txt > >Le 2013-02-27 07:45, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com a =E9crit : >>> 1. The "P" bit comes from pcp-base's reserved range. That=20 >bit is not >>> assignable to an option (layering violation). >> >> Med: Ok to move the parity bit to the option data field. > >Just to be clear, this would increase the option length to 3=20 >bytes, right? Med: 3 is just fine.=20 > >Should we increase it to 4 for padding's sake? Med: Padding will be needed but it is not needed to be reflected in the opt= ion length.=20 > >>> 3. natcoord-10 says "If the Port Set Size is zero or one, a >>> MALFORMED_OPTION error is returned." Disallowing a port set size of >>> one seems overly restrictive, especially when later in the same >>> section there is allowance that if the server cannot fulfill the >>> requested port set size, the server maps one port. I agree a port >>> set size of 0 is nonsensical. >> >> Med: It does not make sense to include a PORT_SET to ask for=20 >one single port. The text you are referring to is when the=20 >port set size > 1. > >Well, it is clear that PORT_SET size of 1 is of little usefulness, but=20 >it can make sense if you just focus on the semantics. The are the same=20 >as a PORT_SET-less MAP request. Med: Yes, we can be tolerant or strict. What if this point is defined as a = configuration option to Section 5: the server should be configured to ignor= e an option with port_set_size=3D1 or return an error message + default beh= aviour is to return an error message? From ssenthil@cisco.com Wed Feb 27 03:20:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E67D21F84F3 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 03:20:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8CdVql258f0l for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 03:20:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7B2721F84CA for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 03:20:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2342; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361964017; x=1363173617; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=1eqmOTu9jBUc0f59gEQPaieOeJ9iQFy9lK2+yeisk3I=; b=bCK5X8GdLTJVaoDcZGAjpYuigbfsIyEjM681RGiGpwYjTFp61eMGS7Ms i80F5Cr8D6bxNpm2WBUlRtv8casvWOL6sCUbBxwG/b1+x1CGM2q1QrgsE 9c+oLAybAg71VNJU0FlW8FlBIJOWs1m3qEumUdAofoEGSW6qmVXPF7lzA 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAPHqLVGtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABEwhZ5FnOCIQEEAQEBawkCEgEIIh0uCxQRAgQBDQUIiAsMviAEjmMxB4JfYQOINJ53gwiCJw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,746,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="181710868" Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2013 11:20:17 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1RBKHRn002052 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:20:17 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.5.42]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 05:20:16 -0600 From: "Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)" To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" , "Simon Perreault" Thread-Topic: [pcp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10.txt Thread-Index: AQHOFNxrvRRIV6HCgUe9NPn20sDhTA== Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:20:16 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EB47D714C@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117 x-originating-ip: [10.65.70.103] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pcp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10.txt X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:20:21 -0000 Please see inline. On 2/27/13 5:48 AM, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" wrote: > >Hi Simon, > >Please see inline. >Cheers, >Med=20 > >>-----Message d'origine----- >>De : Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perreault@viagenie.ca] >>Envoy=E9 : mercredi 27 f=E9vrier 2013 11:29 >>=C0 : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN >>Cc : Dan Wing; pcp@ietf.org >>Objet : Re: [pcp] Fwd: New Version Notification for >>draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-10.txt >> >>Le 2013-02-27 07:45, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com a =E9crit : >>>> 1. The "P" bit comes from pcp-base's reserved range. That >>bit is not >>>> assignable to an option (layering violation). >>> >>> Med: Ok to move the parity bit to the option data field. >> >>Just to be clear, this would increase the option length to 3 >>bytes, right? > >Med: 3 is just fine. > >> >>Should we increase it to 4 for padding's sake? > >Med: Padding will be needed but it is not needed to be reflected in the >option length.=20 > >> >>>> 3. natcoord-10 says "If the Port Set Size is zero or one, a >>>> MALFORMED_OPTION error is returned." Disallowing a port set size of >>>> one seems overly restrictive, especially when later in the same >>>> section there is allowance that if the server cannot fulfill the >>>> requested port set size, the server maps one port. I agree a port >>>> set size of 0 is nonsensical. >>> >>> Med: It does not make sense to include a PORT_SET to ask for >>one single port. The text you are referring to is when the >>port set size > 1. >> >>Well, it is clear that PORT_SET size of 1 is of little usefulness, but >>it can make sense if you just focus on the semantics. The are the same >>as a PORT_SET-less MAP request. > >Med: Yes, we can be tolerant or strict. What if this point is defined as >a configuration option to Section 5: the server should be configured to >ignore an option with port_set_size=3D1 or return an error message + >default behaviour is to return an error message? Unless there is a use case that requires a size to be 1, it doesn=B9t make sense to allow 1 as an allowed value. I am not aware of any such use case. Let's see if Dan has one. Senthil=20 >_______________________________________________ >pcp mailing list >pcp@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp